As a theoretically rigorous and accurate method, FEP-ABFE (Free Energy Perturbation-Absolute Binding Free Energy) calculations showed great potential in drug discovery, but its practical application was difficult due to high computational cost. To rapidly discover antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV-2 Mpro and TMPRSS2, we performed FEP-ABFE–based virtual screening for ∼12,000 protein-ligand binding systems on a new generation of Tianhe supercomputer. A task management tool was specifically developed for automating the whole process involving more than 500,000 MD tasks. In further experimental validation, 50 out of 98 tested compounds showed significant inhibitory activity towards Mpro, and one representative inhibitor, dipyridamole, showed remarkable outcomes in subsequent clinical trials. This work not only demonstrates the potential of FEP-ABFE in drug discovery but also provides an excellent starting point for further development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs. Besides, ∼500 TB of data generated in this work will also accelerate the further development of FEP-related methods.
AbrahamMJMurtolaTSchulzR, et al. (2015) Gromacs: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX1: 19–25.
2.
AdedejiAOSarafianosSG (2014) Antiviral drugs specific for coronaviruses in preclinical development. Current Opinion in Virology8: 45–53.
3.
AldeghiMHeifetzABodkinMJ, et al. (2016) Accurate calculation of the absolute free energy of binding for drug molecules. Chemical Science7(1): 207–218.
4.
AldeghiMHeifetzABodkinMJ, et al. (2017) Predictions of ligand selectivity from absolute binding free energy calculations. Journal of the American Chemical Society139(2): 946–957.
5.
ÅqvistJMedinaCSamuelssonJE (1994) A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Engineering, Design and Selection7(3): 385–391.
6.
BoyceSEMobleyDLRocklinGJ, et al. (2009) Predicting ligand binding affinity with alchemical free energy methods in a polar model binding site. Journal of Molecular Biology394(4): 747–763.
7.
Da SilvaAWSVrankenWF (2012) Acpype-antechamber python parser interface. BMC Research Notes5(1): 1–8.
8.
FriesnerRABanksJLMurphyRB, et al. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. method and assessment of docking accuracy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry47(7): 1739–1749.
9.
GenhedenSRydeU (2015) The mm/pbsa and mm/gbsa methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery10(5): 449–461.
10.
GorgullaCBoeszoermenyiAWangZF, et al. (2020) An open-source drug discovery platform enables ultra-large virtual screens. Nature580(7805): 663–668.
11.
HalgrenTAMurphyRBFriesnerRA, et al. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. enrichment factors in database screening. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry47(7): 1750–1759.
12.
HanssonTMareliusJÅqvistJ (1998) Ligand binding affinity prediction by linear interaction energy methods. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design12(1): 27–35.
13.
HoffmannMKleine-WeberHSchroederS, et al. (2020) Sars-cov-2 cell entry depends on ace2 and tmprss2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell181(2): 271–280.
14.
JakalianABushBLJackDB, et al. (2000) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. am1-bcc model: I. method. Journal of Computational Chemistry21(2): 132–146.
15.
JakalianAJackDBBaylyCI (2002) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. am1-bcc model: Ii. parameterization and validation. Journal of Computational Chemistry23(16): 1623–1641.
16.
JorgensenWLChandrasekharJMaduraJD, et al. (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. The Journal of Chemical Physics79(2): 926–935.
17.
KlimovichPVShirtsMRMobleyDL (2015) Guidelines for the analysis of free energy calculations. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design29(5): 397–411.
18.
KontoyianniMMcClellanLMSokolGS (2004) Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry47(3): 558–565.
19.
KuhnBGerberPSchulz-GaschT, et al. (2005) Validation and use of the mm-pbsa approach for drug discovery. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry48(12): 4040–4048.
20.
LiZCaiYHChengYK, et al. (2013) Identification of novel phosphodiesterase-4d inhibitors prescreened by molecular dynamics-augmented modeling and validated by bioassay. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling53(4): 972–981.
21.
LiZHuangYWuY, et al. (2019) Absolute binding free energy calculation and design of a subnanomolar inhibitor of phosphodiesterase-10. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry62(4): 2099–2111.
22.
LiZLiXHuangYY, et al. (2020) Identify potent sars-cov-2 main protease inhibitors via accelerated free energy perturbation-based virtual screening of existing drugs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(44): 27381–27387.
23.
LiuXLiZLiuS, et al. (2020) Potential therapeutic effects of dipyridamole in the severely ill patients with Covid-19. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B10(7): 1205–1215.
24.
MaierJAMartinezCKasavajhalaK, et al. (2015) ff14sb: improving the accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99sb. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation11(8): 3696–3713.
25.
MlcochovaPKempSDharMS, et al. (2021) Sars-cov-2 b. 1.617. 2 delta variant replication and immune evasion. Nature599: 1–8.
26.
OlssonMHSøndergaardCRRostkowskiM, et al. (2011) Propka3: consistent treatment of internal and surface residues in empirical p k a predictions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation7(2): 525–537.
27.
OumYHKellSAYoonY, et al. (2020) Discovery of novel aminopiperidinyl amide cxcr4 modulators through virtual screening and rational drug design. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry201: 112479.
28.
PállSAbrahamMJKutznerC, et al. (2014) Tackling exascale software challenges in molecular dynamics simulations with gromacs. In: International conference on exascale applications and software. Springer, pp. 3–27.
29.
PohorilleAJarzynskiCChipotC (2010) Good practices in free-energy calculations. Journal of Palliative Care114(32): 10235–10253.
30.
PronkSPállSSchulzR, et al. (2013) Gromacs 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics29(7): 845–854.
31.
ShirtsMRChoderaJD (2008) Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. The Journal of Chemical Physics129(12): 124105.
32.
SøndergaardCROlssonMHRostkowskiM, et al. (2011) Improved treatment of ligands and coupling effects in empirical calculation and rationalization of p k a values. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation7(7): 2284–2295.
33.
WangCNguyenPHPhamK, et al. (2016) Calculating protein–ligand binding affinities with mmpbsa: Method and error analysis. Journal of Computational Chemistry37(27): 2436–2446.
34.
WangESunHWangJ, et al. (2019) End-point binding free energy calculation with mm/pbsa and mm/gbsa: strategies and applications in drug design. Chemical Reviews119(16): 9478–9508.
35.
WangJWangWKollmanPA, et al. (2006) Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling25(2): 247–260.
36.
WangJWolfRMCaldwellJW, et al.2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. Journal of Computational Chemistry25(9): 1157–1174.
37.
XuLSunHLiY, et al. (2013) Assessing the performance of mm/pbsa and mm/gbsa methods. 3. the impact of force fields and ligand charge models. Journal of Palliative Care117(28): 8408–8421.
38.
ZhangYXuLZhangY, et al. (2021) Discovery of novel mif inhibitors that attenuate microglial inflammatory activation by structures-based virtual screening and in vitro bioassays. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica43: 1–13.
